Appeal No. 1997-1093
Application No. 08/272,281
We REVERSE.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
23, mailed May 6, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection and to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 22, filed January 29, 1996) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.3
OPINION
According to appellants, "the present claims are directed to a process wherein
fibrinogen solution is treated at least twice with an adsorbent that does not remove or
adsorb the fibrinogen from solution to thereby yield a stable processed fibrinogen solution"
(brief, page 12, lines 16-19).
According to the examiner,
The fibrinogen solution obtained by Kotitschke presumably maintains
the ability to function for four weeks at 4-25EC since the method taught by
Kotitschke and that claimed are nearly identical. This claimed property is an
inherent feature of a fibrinogen solution obtained by the method claimed and
taught by Kotitschke. [Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4-5.]
3Appellants' reply brief (Paper No. 24, filed July 8, 1996) was denied entry by the examiner in the
communication mailed August 6, 1996 (Paper No. 25). Appellants' petition under 37 CFR § 1.181 to enter
the reply brief was denied by the Group Director in the decision on petition mailed November 25, 1996
(Paper No. 27). Therefore, appellants' reply brief was not considered in our decision making.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007